Pearse Doherty
Ceist:1. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to outline Ireland’s role in facilitating the sale of Israeli war bonds across the EU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28803/25]
Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
Financial Services
Last night, the Government shamefully voted against legislation brought forward by me and Deputy Mary Lou McDonald that would end the practice of the sale of Israeli war bonds being facilitated by the Irish Central Bank. I would like the Minister to take the opportunity to outline to the Irish people the role Ireland has in facilitating the sale of these bonds. For example, what would it mean if the Central Bank did not approve the prospectus relating to such bonds, which, in reality, are not war bonds? A genocide is happening in which, unfortunately, Ireland is now complicit by facilitating the sale of these war bonds.
As I already outlined in the House earlier this week, the Central Bank does not sell or oversee the sale of Israeli bonds. It is important to be clear as to the role of the Central Bank because it has been misrepresented repeatedly. To be clear again, the Central Bank's role under EU legislation is to assess the bond prospectus to ensure that it includes all the disclosure requirements of the EU prospectus regulation. Neither the issuer - in this case the State of Israel - nor the financial products become regulated or endorsed as a result of the assessment.
The Central Bank is designated as the Irish competent authority for the approval of securities prospectuses under the relevant regulation. As the competent authority, the Central Bank is responsible for assessing whether a prospectus has been drawn up in compliance with the disclosure requirements of the regulation. Once the bank is satisfied that the issuer has disclosed the required information, in the required manner as set out in the regulation so that investors can make an informed investment decision, there is no discretion and it must approve it. It is important to reiterate that by approving a prospectus, it does not endorse the issuer or the securities.
The Central Bank has been clear that it can only refuse the approval of a prospectus once it has the legal basis to do so. The Governor of the Central Bank in his correspondence to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on finance, public expenditure and reform and the Department of the Taoiseach set out this view. The Government's position on this matter has been clear and I have set it out to the House during the week.
That is not true. The Minister said there is no discretion for the Central Bank when the information in the prospectus is accurate and it must approve it. That is not the case. What the Minister failed to admit is the Governor of the Central Bank said that there are three ways it can not approve it - one, the information is insufficient in the prospectus; two, the existence of EU sanctions prohibiting the provision of services or assistance in connection with the issuing of securities by the Israeli; or, three, national restrictive measures to the same effect. That is what we are dealing with.
The Minister can dance around these words all he wants. For example, he said, "they are not regulated.". Nobody is suggesting these war bonds or genocide bonds are regulated. Nobody is suggesting it is the Central Bank or the Governor who is selling them. It is the State of Israel that is selling them but it cannot sell them without being facilitated by the Irish Central Bank. When the Irish Central Bank approved the prospectus, it approved the prospectus because the Minister's Government will not provide restrictive measures. Those bonds are then not only sold here but throughout Europe. It is shameful what the Minister, Deputy Donohoe's Government has done and even at this stage, he should revisit this issue.
I am glad Deputy Doherty has restated his view because it is important to be precise about the role of the Central Bank. The Deputy's exact words on this issue, which he has just restated, were that the bonds are being sold through the Irish Central Bank. They were his words in this debate on Tuesday night. The leader of Sinn Féin went on to say that we are allowing the Irish Central Bank to trade in Israeli war bonds. The Deputy knows that is not the truth. The Deputy knows that is not the case. The Central Bank of Ireland is neither selling nor trading in these bonds. I invite the Deputy to now correct the record because what he has done is state something that is not the case. His words were very clear. He said that the bonds are being sold through the Irish Central Bank. They were his words. The words of Deputy Mary Lou McDonald were that the Irish Central Bank is trading in bonds. They are his words and I invite him to correct the record.
The Minister's response is pathetic. The facts are - and he knows it - the Central Bank has facilitated the sale of Israeli war bonds. That is a fact. Nobody in this House disputes that. The fact is the Governor said that to stop that, he needs national restrictive measures. The fact is the Minister's Government will not do it. Maybe he had another call with an Israeli minister to assure him that legislation would not go through also. Does the Minister remember that call he denied ever happened but it appeared in leaked information from the ministry in Israel? The fact is these war bonds are being sold. The fact is that if it was not for the Central Bank, they would not be able to be sold, not only in Ireland but in other countries throughout Europe. That is a fact. The fact is his Government is allowing that to happen.
It is not a minor issue. It is not an issue about words. It is the fact that genocide is happening right before our eyes and the Minister and his Government have made a decision to not intervene in areas where they can intervene and where we have the powers under EU law to issue measures, using the policy exemption, to make sure the free trade of capital can be restricted at a national level.
The Deputy did not respond to my point.
I did.
I laid out very clearly his words. Very interestingly, when Deputy Martin Kenny stood up, he said "we are not suggesting that they are being sold by the Irish Central Bank".
I said that earlier.
He said "we are not suggesting any of that."
I said that earlier.
In the Deputy's contribution on Tuesday night, both Deputy Doherty and the leader of Sinn Féin referred to the bonds being sold through the Central Bank of Ireland, which is not the case, and he referred to the Central Bank of Ireland trading in bonds, which is not the case. It is so important, as I attempt to continue to-----
To defend the fact we are funding genocide.
-----recognise the suffering of the people of Gaza and the many practical steps the Government of Ireland is taking to aid them, to give them support-----
Pathetic.
-----that we also deal in the truth. In relation to the final allegation that was made by Deputy Doherty, let me again state to the House that no such call was received by me. I have made that very clear. I find it very interesting that the Deputy is more willing to accept the word of the department of finance of Israel than me.
I would love to know the Minister's motivation for allowing or for supporting the funding of genocide. That was the issue.
Insurance Industry
Pearse Doherty
Ceist:2. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the steps he is taking to address the situation where insurance companies for multiple consecutive years are recording profit margins two or three times the industry average; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28804/25]
Maybe the Minister's response to this question will not be as pathetic because his words will ring hollow to the children who are being ripped apart in Gaza. The bombs and bullets are funded because Israeli bonds are being facilitated through the Irish Central Bank and he is the Minister of Finance who can actually stop that. It is disgraceful.
I am asking the Minister to explain the steps he is taking to address the situation where insurance companies here are recording profits that are multiples of our European competitors.
I want to call out the behaviour of Deputy Doherty. His language and the way he is attempting to treat this issue, which is so serious, is thuggish. His behaviour is thuggish. Yesterday, the leader of Sinn Féin referred to harassing the Government on this issue.
It was the Taoiseach who referred to that.
I have come into House to attempt to deal-----
As a point of order, the Minister is making accusations against somebody who cannot defend themselves. It was the Taoiseach who made that accusation and I will not accept the Minister calling me a thug or my behaviour thuggish while he protects and defends the situation where Israeli war bonds are here. I will not stand and allow the Minister to suggest that I am thuggish in that manner because we know what this is all about. This is far too important and I will not allow him to characterise my behaviour or standing up for what I believe in that way.
I will give the Minister's time back.
I can stand up for what I believe but I can do so in a way that is respectful of the views of others. I can make the case for what I believe in without constantly interrupting and demeaning the good intentions of others.
Hear, hear.
For the record, I used the words of Deputy McDonald yesterday. That was the word she used. Despite everything, I still try to respect Deputy Doherty's good intentions in spite of the many reasons I should not. I simply ask the Deputy to do the same of me.
In relation to the very important matter he raises here, I recognise the concerns on profitability levels in certain segments of the market. Structural reform and ensuring the long-term affordability and sustainability of the Irish insurance market, while ensuring a viable insurance sector, are priorities for this Government.
The insurance market’s profitability in 2022 and 2023 was supported by significant reserve releases following the Covid-19 pandemic. After a number of years of losses, the National Claims Information Database data shows that the insurance market was profitable again in 2023. For liability insurance, the operating profit was 13% in 2023, and the long-term average operating profit was 2.1% between 2009-2023. The motor insurance market had an 8% profit in 2023, with a long-term average profit of approximately 5 % between 2009-2023.
Globally, 2023 was characterised as a hard market with higher premiums, stricter underwriting conditions and higher reinsurance costs. In contrast, industry insights suggest that 2024 showed a softening market with increasing competition and falling rates which have translated into lower premia in some market segments, but further work is needed.
That is why the Government is developing a new action plan for insurance reform that will prioritise further competition in the market. It will include further work, including with insurers, to enhance transparency and promote affordability across all types of insurance. My Department has concluded the public consultation and is reviewing the various submissions.
The question I continue to raise relates to when the Government is going to deal with the issue of the costs that people are paying for motor insurance and home insurance and that sports groups, organisations, community groups and small businesses the length and breadth of this State are paying for public liability insurance. The profits being made by the industry are eye-watering. When representatives of the industry came before the finance committee, they told us they would target a 4% to 5% increase; not 4% to 5% over the past ten to 20 years but because that is the industry norm. Insurance premiums have increased and we have seen double-digit profit margins for the past three years. The margins they are making are two and three times the European average. I have supported all the reforms that have been introduced in this House. However, I argued that such reforms cannot be about boosting the profits of the industry; they have to be about putting money back into consumers' pockets. That is where the Government is failing over and over again.
I thank the Deputy for raising that issue and acknowledging the scale of the reforms the Government has brought in, and his own role in that regard, which I acknowledge. I also acknowledge the Consumer Insurance Contracts Act 2019, which was the subject of a motion the Deputy brought forward. Part of that Act has not yet been commenced, but most of it has. There are various measures the Government brought in: the personal injuries guidelines; the reform of the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022; the banning of price walking; the establishment of an office to promote competition; the publication by the Central Bank of its national claims information database; the work that has been done by the CCPC; the establishment of an insurance fraud co-ordination office; and the work done by the Garda, Insurance Ireland and the Alliance for Insurance Reform. All that work was not done to create higher levels of profitability. It was done to create a more competitive sector for those who depend upon it. I want to see that translated into lower prices.
The problem here - and this is not the first time I have highlighted it - is that I, on behalf of Sinn Féin and the Alliance for Insurance Reform, said we needed commitments from the insurance industry that if reforms were introduced, then premiums needed to be reduced. The Minister's former party leader, Leo Varadkar, gave headlines to the newspapers six or seven years ago to the effect that he was giving the insurance industry six months or else. What did he mean by that? Just taking the past 12 months, insurance premiums for motorists have gone up a whopping 9%. Motor insurance is at the highest level it has been in five years. It is more than double the European average. What is driving motor insurance premiums up? There is only one thing: it is profit and corporate greed. The industry is able to do this because the Government is not going to do anything it, despite the words of the former Taoiseach six or seven years ago. There is no stick when it comes to this issue. That is why the insurance companies are taking a hand not only at the Government but at their customers. What is happening is not right. What measures does the Minister plans to take to ensure that these reforms will result in meaningful reductions for consumers as opposed to whopping profits for the industry?
With regard to motor insurance, it is the case that the figures in the year to date are up 9.7%. If you look at where it was for the month of April, they were up 0.2%. The figures are now 34.4% lower than they were at their peak in 2016. If you look at motor insurance, prices are now down by 2.2% since the implementation of the personal injuries guidelines and down 5.1% since the Cabinet sub-committee on insurance reform was set up. We have seen some developments there.
The Deputy is at it again. He is inferring that the Government is doing nothing, when I have laid out what the Government is doing. What we will be doing now is that I and the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, will be working on the new further action plan for reform. We will also be engaging with the insurance sector and looking at what further options we need to consider. We have done our bit, and so has the Oireachtas. We need to see better value for the consumer as a result of that.
Financial Services
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Ceist:3. Deputy Paul Nicholas Gogarty asked the Minister for Finance his views on postal orders as a means for making payments for bills with State agencies and local authorities, especially among those with limited IT skills and no chequebooks; whether such organisations have the right to refuse postal orders; if so, whether this could be amended through his offices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27878/25]
We know that the use of cheques in this country has declined dramatically, especially since Covid. The current rate of use is now half what it was in 2023, and has probably declined more. I do not have the up-to-date figures. Many people do not have chequebooks anymore or if they do, they are stashed away in a box somewhere and are not used that much. Equally, there are many older people who do not have bank cards because they do have bank accounts. In this context, what are the Minister's views on postal orders as a means of making payments to State agencies and local authorities, especially among those with limited IT skills and no chequebooks? Do these entities have the right to refuse postal orders? If they do, can this be amended through the Minister's offices?
I ask that Deputies stay within the time limit.
I thank the Deputy for this question, particularly as maintaining a variety of payment options in the State is important for the economy and for ensuring the financial inclusion of consumers who are older, on fixed or lower incomes or at risk of digital exclusion.
The availability of non-digital payment options ensures that certain vulnerable groups are not excluded from participating in our society. This is why cash access has been ensured via the recently passed Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025 and why cash acceptance was recommended in the national payments strategy of 2024. Launched in October 2024, the strategy recommended cash acceptance or cash facilitation in the public sector where a public body levies fines or fees or where it provides goods or services for a charge. If a body cannot accept cash directly, it must arrange for the facilitation of cash payments via third party. In November, the Secretary General of my Department wrote to all other Secretaries General notifying them of this recommendation. Departments and bodies under their aegis will be required to confirm, via their annual reports, that they are in compliance with this recommendation.
It is my view that postal orders fall within the scope of facilitating cash payments via a third party. Postal orders are accepted by a number of local authorities and State agencies such as the Revenue. If the Deputy would like more information on the volume, use and operation of postal orders, An Post is the appropriate body to ask. I will certainly raise this matter with An Post because I accept that the point the Deputy raised is important.
What I am more interested in is the Minister raising it with the agencies. For example, South Dublin County Council has cash offices in Tallaght and Clondalkin, but many people who rely solely on public transport find it very hard to get to those places. I wish to give a specific example regarding resident parking permits for an area that have to be paid through South Dublin Parking Services. When a resident tried to make an arrangement to do this by phone, they were told, "Sorry, cheques only, we are not accepting postal orders". I acknowledge that this was a contractor acting on behalf of a local government agency, but there seems to be a miscommunication at that point because I have heard other stories about other agencies. I do not have the time to go through it, but maybe a communication should be issued to explicitly state that postal orders should always be accepted as legal tender in these cases.
I will raise that matter with the Minister for housing. The information I have does cover off where we are with our State agencies but does not deal with the local authorities at the level the Deputy has just referred to, and, in particular, the specific case to which he referred. I accept that for our more elderly citizens who need to use local authorities and other services, not being able to use cash broadly can be, for them, more than an issue of convenience. As I said, I will follow up on this with the Minister for housing and will revert to the Deputy.
Fiscal Data
Pearse Doherty
Ceist:4. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance in the context of rising costs and higher prices hitting households, to outline the surplus that the State will run in 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28805/25]
I remind Deputies that only one person is to stand in the Chamber at a time.
Will the Minister outline the surplus the State will run in 2025?
That is in the context of the Government ruling out a cost-of-living package in the budget. We have heard this from the Minister and the Taoiseach. It is a reflection of a Government that is out of touch and that does not understand the real pressures ordinary people are under. This is despite surpluses of billions of euro being recorded not only this year but in previous years. People are really struggling because the actions of the Government have left them high and dry in some cases.
When it comes to inflation, it is important to emphasise the reason so many people are still struggling with it, and I accept it is a challenge for many, is not because of the actions of the Government. Inflation within our economy and the way it has gone up has not been caused by the Government of Ireland. It has been caused by factors that are outside of our control, in many cases. I refer to the cost of energy and what has happened with supply chains across the world.
To answer the Deputy's question, we are currently - and I say "currently" - projecting a general Government surplus for this year of €8.7 billion, nearly all of which is caused by the corporate tax receipts most Members of this House, including I believe Deputy Doherty, have always acknowledged are highly volatile and that we cannot depend upon them.
The reason I say we cannot do the one-off measures we have done in the past again is that while the cost of living is still high, the rate of inflation we have seen that justified us doing those packages has fallen dramatically. When we brought in the various large cost-of-living measures, it was done in anticipation they would be one-off. That turned out not to be the case but what has turned out to be the case is that inflation has fallen. We were in a situation where inflation was well in excess of 10% and growing so quickly but now it will be, I hope, between 1% and 2% and growing at a far more normal level.
I accept prices are high and that this is a challenge for so many people but the rate of price increases has fallen dramatically. What the Government will aim to do is to provide the support we normally do through, for example, social welfare measures that feature in every budget as opposed to the repetition of measures which if they became normal, I would be concerned they would not be affordable.
Some inflation is absolutely beyond our control. Other high prices are as result of price gouging or Government failures. Our pillar banks had combined profits of €5 billion last year, much of that came from the fact homeowners and savers were short-changed. We have double digit rent increases. New rents outside of Dublin are rising by 9% with 12 counties experiencing double digit rent inflation increases. That is because the Government will not enact our legislation to ban rent increases. We have crippling childcare costs despite the Government's commitment to reduce them. We still do not have a plan to do that. The Minister's party promised a plan within 100 days and that is another promise that has been broken. There are eye watering insurance costs and the Government is not doing anything to ensure that savings resulting from reforms are passed on. We have the highest electricity costs in Europe. This is also at a time when we will record significant surpluses in the region of €8 billion to €9 billion each year and the Government is leaving people high and dry because they need support at this time and a cost-of-living package is absolutely necessary.
It is not the case to say that some inflation is caused by forces outside our control. Looking at the inflation we have gone through in recent years most of it has been caused by issues outside of our control. What has happened with the cost of food and energy has been cause by the awful war on the people of Ukraine and the huge changes that have happened in supply chains and the way goods are supplied across the world after the pandemic.
I accept there are issues that definitely contribute to the cost of living and that develop within our own economy. However, I make the case that if we accept that corporate tax receipts are absolutely at risk, because of the global issues we now confronting and that have not been raised yet in the Dáil today but which we discussed at the finance committee last night, it would not be proper for me to use receipts and money I know may not be permanent to fund measures that could become permanent.
Yet it was proper for the Minister for Finance to sign off on the first piece of legislation he introduced, which was to give a big increase to junior Ministers and increase the number of super junior Ministers, which is something we are challenging in the courts. Inflation is also caused by the Government. When the Government decided to increase the carbon tax, it put up the price of petrol and diesel. It put up the price of home heating oil and gas, which the Government did last month. These are things that are under the Government's control. When the Government decides not to ban rent increases, inflation goes up and families are under pressure. These are things that could be under control if the Government would intervene. Given that the Government has not taken these measures, families are struggling now. We see from the CSO and from surveys by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and others that here are many families who simply cannot even put a hot dinner on the table.
I ask the Minister for Finance, in the context of recording surpluses in excess of €17 billion this year and next year, that there would be a cost-of-living package, not to spend €17 billion on it but to recognise people have been short-changed by the Government and to recognise there is a need for one in this year's budget.
Referring to being short-changed, if the Deputy looks at the measures the Government has brought in recent years, the various one-off measures brought in on budget day did make a difference to people at a time during which the cost of living was so high and inflation was going up. In regard to the carbon tax the Deputy referred to, it is also the case that carbon tax funded the allocation of €951 million to various measures that are helping not only with fuel poverty but with the transition to a lower carbon future. Every day of the week, Members from the Deputy's party look for more of these measures while being against the taxes that pay for them. I have to be honest in acknowledging that if we want to invest more in a greener and lower carbon future, we need to have a way of paying for it. The Deputy does not take the same approach.
I do.
He has not explained how we will pay for this.
I have.
He is against the carbon tax.
I absolutely-----
What the Deputy is proposing here is that we use receipts that we fear might not be available to us in the future to fund permanent measures. Incidentally-----
No. I did not say that.
-----if we had been implementing the measures proposed by the Deputy in the past-----
I did not say that.
-----we would not have this surplus available to us at all.
Housing Schemes
Barry Heneghan
Ceist:5. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide an update on the review of the help to buy scheme; if consideration is being given to adjusting the eligibility criteria or value thresholds in response to recent changes in house prices and inflation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28246/25]
My question concerns the help to buy scheme and its future direction. The programme for Government commits to both retaining and revising the scheme. Given the significant rise in house prices, particularly in north Dublin, has consideration been given to adjusting the eligibility criteria or value threshold to ensure the scheme remains relevant and accessible to first-time buyers of my generation?
I thank the Deputy for raising this. The help to buy scheme is a plan to assist first time purchasers with the deposit if they need to buy or build a new house of apartment. It also has as an aim to encourage additional supply of new homes by supporting demand. The Deputy knows what the help to buy scheme is so I will not go into the detail of it.
The scheme has supported almost 55,000 individuals or couples. The estimated value of it has been €1.2 billion and the scheme has now been extended until 2030. It is reviewed in accordance with the Department of Finance’s tax expenditure guidelines on a regular basis and any revision to the scheme would have to be considered as part of the annual budget and finance Bill process. I look forward to hearing the Deputy's view on the scheme.
I reiterate my thinking on the future of the scheme. I do not believe the scheme should be extended to second hand homes. I appreciate this can sometimes be a difficult argument to make but a criticism and risk of a scheme like this is that we have to avoid adding to the cost of new homes being purchased by home purchasers. There is a risk that if the scheme was made available for homes that have already been built the money we are making available at the moment would simply go into making the homes more expensive as opposed to what I believe it does overall, which is to help with the supply of homes within a certain price bracket. Beyond that, I look forward to hearing the Deputy's views on the future of the scheme.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I welcome that the Minister said that. I have met developers in north Dublin and across the country and they told me that the Housing Finance Agency was meeting just once a month. Completed buildings are sitting empty in the middle of a housing crisis, yet there does not seem to be a sense of urgency in the Department. Housing is not the Minister's Department, but as Minister for Finance, will he be increasing the number of times the agency meets in order to show people that we are serious about tackling this crisis and show investors that Ireland can be trusted?
In Dublin Bay North, I regularly hear from first-time buyers who are doing their best to secure a home close to work. However, many new builds in the area now fall out of the existing eligibility cap, making this scheme inaccessible to those it was designed to support. These people are not high earners or looking for luxury properties. They are ordinary people being priced out by rising market values. Will there be a threshold change to the scheme?
The issue of the threshold change is a matter that will be considered budget to budget. I caution that any changes could affect the price of a home, particularly at a point when we still have so much we need to do to increase supply.
Regarding the important point that the Deputy made about the Housing Finance Agency meeting, I believe that refers to meetings of the board. The Deputy is concerned that, by only meeting once a month, it could be delaying important decisions. I will follow up on that. It is appropriate that a board meet approximately once a month, but that should not delay important decisions at a time when we need all the finance we can get to build more homes. I will raise that matter.
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is exactly that - the board is meeting once a month. Developers and investors are seeing this. It is holding developers up and adding many costs for them, which they do not like and discourages the building of homes.
The scheme is valuable and it is right that it is being retained. I look forward to the budget and seeing what this Government will do. Revision is needed to ensure that the scheme reflects today's market. This includes updating the price gap and ensuring that the rules are clear and consistent. This is an opportunity to make a good scheme more responsive and fair for today's buyers, particularly for the buyers of north Dublin.
I am familiar with the needs of home buyers on the northside of Dublin, including within the Deputy's constituency. We will give consideration to this issue as part of the work we do for the budget. I emphasise that, at a time in which supply is not being built as fast as the Deputy or I want, we need to be careful that we not make a change to a scheme that could inadvertently add to the cost of homes.
We will take the Deputy's points on board and consider the issue he raised. In the context of our exchange, I will examine the issue of the frequency of board meetings to ensure that it is not creating undue delay in decisions that lead to homes being built.